Forum:Quality of an Article?
I don't know, but seriously. How can you identify if an article is Medium Quality, High Quality or Low? That's all. --[[User:Dracosyna|Dracosyna']] Talk Page 10:37, January 29, 2010 (UTC) ---- We use crazy magic. Citcxirtcem BAAAAAWW to me! 19:16, January 29, 2010 (UTC) It depends on length and quality of the article. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Internet is Tubes!]]) ''View this template'' 20:14, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Though we really should make some criteria. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'''Explorer 767]] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'The Internet is Tubes!']]) View this template 20:14, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Your right, Explorer. Well, the only thing that I can do right now is give examples of a LQA, MQA and a HQA. Based on my opinion. Some of these might have a MQA article, but I might think it's a HQA. So these are my thoughts: * VLQA: Gamb100 - might have an Infobox, but without it, it would look dreadful. :* LQA Med: Nacho Cheese Puffle Food - it's got an Infobox, atleast. ::* LQA High: 2000 Capital Elections - an adequate background on the event. * MQA Low: Copier Guy - because of the list, it's a low MQA - in my opinion. :* MQA Med: Coool41 - a very nice article, at least a good sentence in all sections. ::* MQA High: United Penguin's Republic - Almost a HQA, but not quite. * HQA Low: Ford Car and Link - Nice article, but if the Episode list wasn't there, I'd think a med/high MQA. :* HQA Med: Maledict - lovely, but a HQA Medium would do this. ::* HQA High: UnitedTerra - Lawl, no I'm using my own article, but this is an example of a high HQA. * ULTRA: United States of Antarctica - Ultra Quality Article, which I'm sorting out with TurtleShroom. Thankfully, just when Firefox crashed, this stayed with it (phew!) And those are my opinions on articles. Have a look at them, and maybe you can agree with me on those. Hope this helped - atleast a bit, anyway. The UQA thing I am working on with TurtleShroom - something of the standards of Antarctica. Anymore suggestions on identifying quality articles? If you don't, I do. I'll write them soon. -- ¤ ([[User:Ninjinian|'User page!']]) ([[User talk:Ninjinian|'The Cookie Master, bow!']]) 21:14, January 29, 2010 (UTC) ---- * Actually, I'm more with Mectric on this. I use no set criteria, I merely judge by article. Each article has its own manner of ranking, and every one of them is handled differently. There is no standard. I rank each and every article individually. A standard is good for some, but not others. Also, Ninjinian, since you use the FireFox, then you should download the Lazarus add-on. It is the #1 reason, if not the sole reason, I stayed on the FireFox after my computer was repaired and IE was patched. It is a text saver and saves all forms entered. The other features that also kept me on the FireFox came later. --† This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 23:35, January 29, 2010 (UTC) * Exactly right, and yes, I took your advice and installed Lazarus (thanks!) More on rating an article, you first need to read the article carefully, and make sure that every section has every detail that it needs. If there are, say... 4 very long paragraphs in three out of five sections of an article, and the other two of the five sections have 2 long-but-not-very-long paragraphs each, I would judge that as a HQA. The Infobox should be correct, with all the information filled in it. We should include this in that newbie guide... -- ¤ ([[User:Ninjinian|'User page!']]) ([[User talk:Ninjinian|'The Cookie Master, bow!']]) 20:57, February 7, 2010 (UTC) * We have a newbie guide?--Sir Kwiksilver of TARDIS-Spanners shhh! 23:10, March 3, 2010 (UTC)